Allowed

shaik awaiz v. the Gayatri Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

DRT21 Feb 2025SA/63/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SA No. 63 of 2024, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, allowed an security application challenging an E-auction sale notice dated 19.01.2024. The court quashed the auction fixing date of 01.03.2024 because the bank failed to prove compliance with the SARFAESI Act and Rules, specifically regarding notice periods and service requirements.

What did the court decide?

The E-Auction sale notice dated 19.01.2024 fixing the auction on 01.03.2024 is hereby quashed; the bank may proceed afresh following SARFAESI provisions.

shaik awaiz versus the Gayatri Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

SA.No.63 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri ShaikAwaiz, s/o ShaikSharifuddin, aged 33 years, occ: business, male, R/o H.No.1-94l5, perkit, Armoor, Nizamabad - 503 224.

¶7

Sri ShaikParveez,

¶8

s/o ShaikSharifuddin,

¶9

aged 35 year, occ: business, male, R/o H.No. 1-941 5, perkit,

¶10

Armoor, Nizamabad - 503 224.

¶11

SmtTasleem Alias Tasleem Begum, w/o ShaikSharifuddin, aged 53 years, occ: housewiFe, female, R/o H.No. 1 -94/5, perkit, Armoor, Nizamabad - 503 224.

¶12

Applicants

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

The Gayatri Co-operative Urbank Bank Ltd, Armoor Branch, MamidipalliChowrastha, Besides Anand Shopping Mall, Armoor, Nizamabad, Telangana - 503 224. Represented by its Authorised officer

¶15

r--s
J 21ttB,oz$ ].
Rn#*,,,,,,rs;7

¶16

The Gayatri Co-operative Urban Bank Lt Regional office, R/o 7 -l-72,73,74, Gayatri towers, TahasilChowrasta, Jagtial, Telangana - 505 327. Represented by its authorised officer

¶17

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶18

Counsel for Applicant

¶19

Respondent

¶20

: Shri B. Sanjay Kumar

: Exparte

(SA.No.63/2024)

ORDER

The applicant filed securitisation Application under section 17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financiar Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 challenging the E_Auction Sale Notice dated 19.01.2024 issued by respondent bank and fixing the auction of schedure property on 01.03.2024 under SARFAESI Act and without following the rules, provisions, regulations and procedures as prescribed under SARFAESI Act.

¶25

The case in brief is that appricant herein avaired mortgage term roan facilities for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/_ on 05.01.2019 and made regular payments in the loan account. Due to covid-19 in the year 2020 and 2021, the applicants could not make some payments in loan account and the lstRespondent bank without considering the payments issued the impugned demand notice dated O6.lL.2O2L. It is submitted that the respondent bank faired to folow the due process oF raw and issued the possession notice regarding schedure property of application which is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of SARFAESI Act and rures made thereunder. The respondent bank failed to issue/ serve the possession notice and respondent bank arso

¶26

failed to affix the at the conspicuous place of the property and a 4it"o leading newspapers and thereby not F siled thf pt$q,sE'" ribed under Rule B(1) and (2). The res befor%:?.jblishins E-Aucrion Sate notice El[tank &i[!ry

¶27

(SA.No.63/2024)

¶28

dated 19.01.2024 fa,ed to issue 30 days notice as required under Rule 8(6) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, The respondent bank violated B(5), 8(6) and g(7) of Security (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Hence the SA.

¶29

Notice served to Respondent. Respondent cared absent and set exparte.

¶30

Heard the arguments of Applicant Counsel.

¶31

Now the point for consideration is

¶32

i) Whether the appticantshave established any valid grounds for setting aside the E-auction sale notice dated 19.01.2024 issued by the Respondent bank and fixing the auction on 01.03.2024 against the schedule property?

¶33

ii) To What Relief?

¶34

Point no.i)

¶35

The Appricants fired the present SA charenging the sare notice dated L9.0L.2024 and fixing the auction on 01.03.2024 in respect of schedule property. But, the Respondent bank who invoked the SARFAESI proceedings against the schedule property, failed to justify thei r action by fi I r ryr r.ei5a:,qnifprpd u ce n ecessa ry m ateria I d ocu ments l'rf,.'n'\ l1 to prove th?f'Eq€ Eag iictly Followed the provisions of SARFAESI Ji;..d l{"t RUICS?j:u5d tnq$rnOer white proceeding against i',.,-...." tne securedl,.h",² lrjEl"l$".r#,1.1.,,,", ";,."; ;;;J ; -{'^{:'/ti ---- -} ffi

¶36

(sA.No.63/2024)

¶37

contesting the matter even after giving severar opportunities and failed to appear and fire repry arong with documents to disprove the allegations of Applicants. In the absence of any material evidence to show that the Respondent Bank has duly complied with the mandated provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules, 2002 while proceeding against the secured asset for fixing the auction of schedule property on 01.03.2024, I hord that the Appricants have made a case for quashing the measures inltiated by the Respondent bank against the SA schedule property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules thereunder and as such, the SA is liable to be allowed.

¶38

Point no.ii)

¶39

In the result, 5A.63/2024 is allowed.

¶40

Accordingly, the E-Auction sale notice dated 19.01.2024 fixing the auction on 0t.03.2024 against schedule property is hereby quashed. However, the Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed afresh against the SA schedule property to recover their dues by duly following the provisions under SARFAESI Act, 2oo2 and Rules thereu nder.

¶41

(SA.No.63/2024)

¶42